Lists Home |
Date Index |
Gad, Gavin, it seems that all we are saying is what we have said for years and years:
don't confuse XML with applications of XML. XML Doesn't DO Anything. I noted
in the article that Elliotte references at Cafe con Leche
"To many people XML is best described as data. To be pedantic, XML is not data, XML 1.0 ( W3C Recommendation Feb 1998 ) is data. In it's most general sense the term XML refers to a extensive set of XML based standards that encompass everything from the core W3C standards ( e.g. XML schema, XSLT etc. ) to standards defined by various industrial verticals ( e.g. Rosettanet ) and numerous other bodies ( e.g. ebXML, SOAP )."
To be even more pedantic but more correct, XML IS ONLY SYNTAX and then,
applied. Kirkham deliberately confuses that then uses that confusion to
rope people into the "objects must make room" argument. [Disguise the
turtle as the rabbit...]. Who bloody cares. The reason I hear most
of the time for using objects isn't data encapsulation; it is code
or interface inheritance, the great timesavers. Why fight over that?
Well... to sell XML and Sun frameworks. (MyObjects and YourData
make a wonderful marriage... The Turtle wins because the Turtle
is always the Hero of this Cartoon Fable.)
XML at the boundaries: unless you need load balancing, don't
worry about this one until you have to get the humans to agree and
then carefully limit the humans who have to agree if you can.
Reverse entropy??? Can we say, ecotonal boundaries?
So here is a Sun engineer who isn't wrong
in that XML is to an OOP, an atavism, starting a fight which was over
before it was begun. By design, XML is not a disruptive technology.
It is the least disruptive possible. Disruption by application is
how any technology gets a foothold in the market and the textbook,
but XML instances are just data with labels and nesting.
Let's see which app gets the best part of the cookie: WebCGM or SVG.
From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:email@example.com]
On Tuesday 15 January 2002 10:41 am, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> No, that misses point completely. The point is not whether XML *can*
> be as opaque as anything else. It whether XML *is* as opaque as
> anything else.
I think you are confusing XML with XMl data and XML practise.
You are correct that in many applications, tag names/attributes add
value to the data. That has nothing to do with XML *itself*... just
the way people use it.